Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Anakin7]

    I have been told there are 200 + interpetations of 1 Cor 15:29.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[danielwoods]

The ironic thing about this is that you have never been able to give a direct quote for anything that supports your interpretation. The context of John 5 states unequivocally that the gospel will be preached. Verse 24 states vey plainly He that heareth my word... - His word is the Gospel. The next few verses are in the context of verse 24 and hearing His word. He goes on the say both the living and the dead will hear his voice. And what will His voice be? His voice is his message, and that is the Gospel.

His voice is simply his voice. In the case of those standing there, they were hearing his message of truth. The gospel, sure. In the case of those already dead, then they heard his voice which is a reference to the resurrection. As it states plainly hear his voice and rise to live or be condemned.

What isn't there is the mention of repentance.

 

I never said everyone will have the opportunity to repent after we die... only those that never had the opporunity in this life.

Fair enough. It still isn't in the passage.

 

This is all very interesting but does not say anything to what I requested - that is where is the passage you cited used as a euphemism for the state of the soul and not death.

Don't have time to study this out yet. I'll have to get back to this question.

 

Factual hmm... so no wicked king had a successor. Only faithful kings had successors? Israel was rewarded while David was faithful, but how does Israel rewarded when their king is suffering from feuds and open rebellion within his own family? Remember the sword would never depart from his house, and God would raise up evil from within his own house.

I am going by what is written. Israel was blessed because of Davids faithfulness, that's what it states.

It's sort of like passing all the tests, and then the LDS comes and states that David failed the course.

Why was he continued to be punished after he was forgiven? For the rest of his life...?

No, why do the LDS think that David needed to be punished after he died, if he was forgiven already?

Edited October 11, 2014 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

Just what will His voice convey? What message will His voice bring? Verse 24 - His word.

His message of victory brings the resurrection to life for some and death for others. That's what it says.

This is a case where the exact quote from the scriptures is used and you still say it doesn't mean what it says.

Notice he is using and existing practice of the church to validate an afterlife. Why in the world would he use a practice by "non-christians" to validate a Christian concept? Really?

Notice that even when it is spelled out explicitly in the scriptures there are denials of what the scriptures say. That is called twisting and perverting the scriptures to fit your own agenda.

The "And for us..." that you cite does not indicate anything of the sort. The "And for us" relates to what comes next....why were they in jeopardy every hour..., not previous. The whole of verse 30 relates to what is said next. Read the next few verses... specifically 32.

The whole argument Paul is making in this passage is the validity of a physical resurrection. Paul uses any and all means necessary to support this argument. Many in the Corinthian church had occultic and other "religious" backgrounds, to which, it appears to me at least, that he is appealing to those people, in verse 29.

If he was teaching baptism of the dead by proxy, as per the LDS teaching, then it wouldn't it be important enough to be found in other scriptures? Or even mentioned by Jesus or John or Luke or James? Or anyone else? And even Paul doesn't actually teach it here he is only using the practice of some to support his argument for reassertion.

Again, what is actually taught in the New Testament? Is baptism for the dead actually taught? Even the LDS would have to agree that it is not.

[Flyonthewall]

His voice is simply his voice. In the case of those standing there, they were hearing his message of truth. The gospel, sure. In the case of those already dead, then they heard his voice which is a reference to the resurrection. As it states plainly hear his voice and rise to live or be condemned.

What isn't there is the mention of repentance.

So you agree that His voice to the living is His message of Truth, the gospel. Then when He stated that same voice will be heard by the dead, all of a sudden, that same voice is not His message of Truth, the gospel. What is it then? Will the voice say anything? Will it be a word? simple a sound? What is the purpose of this voice?

The context of the verses is that all will have the opportunity to hear His Voice, His Word, His Gospel.

 

Fair enough. It still isn't in the passage.

Repentance is part of His Gospel. Those that never had the opportunity to hear His gospel will have a chance to accept it.

Don't have time to study this out yet. I'll have to get back to this question.

Don't worry about it - not really important.

 

I am going by what is written. Israel was blessed because of Davids faithfulness, that's what it states.

It's sort of like passing all the tests, and then the LDS comes and states that David failed the course.

I too, am going on what is written. I agree. Israel was indeed blessed by David's accomplishments. He accomplished much. Most of the time he was faithful. He was a great and spiritual man of God... but that did not give him a free pass from adultery and murder. He suffered consequences both temporally and spiritually for those sins.

To use a similar analogy, it would be like he was running a race and was the leader for most of the race, but tripped and fell near the end. He got up and finished the race, but did not win the race.

No, why do the LDS think that David needed to be punished after he died, if he was forgiven already?

You seem to think he was forgiven of his sins when he was confronted by Nathan. Yet God still punished him after he was forgiven....for the rest of his life. Why would that be?

[Flyonthewall]

His message of victory brings the resurrection to life for some and death for others. That's what it says.

His message of victory is the gospel, which gives opportunity for all to accept or reject it.

The whole argument Paul is making in this passage is the validity of a physical resurrection. Paul uses any and all means necessary to support this argument. Many in the Corinthian church had occultic and other "religious" backgrounds, to which, it appears to me at least, that he is appealing to those people, in verse 29.

If he was teaching baptism of the dead by proxy, as per the LDS teaching, then it wouldn't it be important enough to be found in other scriptures? Or even mentioned by Jesus or John or Luke or James? Or anyone else? And even Paul doesn't actually teach it here he is only using the practice of some to support his argument for reassertion.

Again, what is actually taught in the New Testament? Is baptism for the dead actually taught? Even the LDS would have to agree that it is not.

The whole context of the chapter is that there is a resurrection, and all will be taught the gospel, so that all will be judged in relation to the gospel.

Is baptism taught as part of the Gospel? Absolutely! Baptism is required as the first step in accepting the gospel. Before baptism is repentance.

Would it be fair and just for those that never had the opportunity to hear the gospel, be baptized, and accept it, to be cast off because there was no opportunity? Absolutely NOT!

God gives opportunity to all to hear and accept His gospel. Living or Dead.

If all the pieces of the gospel are put together, the picture becomes clear. The NT supports our beliefs... Repentance, baptism, 3 degrees of glory, preaching the gospel to the spirits in prison, baptism for the dead, and the list goes on and on and on.

If you do not want to try and fit all the different concepts alluded to in the scriptures, then you come up with a picture that is hazy, fuzzy, and a mystery.

[coolrok7]

Romans 1&2 explains the Mormon attempt to solve the dilemma of explaining how ones that never heard of Jesus can have the opportunity of being saved (baptism for the dead teaching). They never stay long enough with the Bible to learn it has already given the answer.

Romans 1 rejection of general revelation leaves them without excuse. Romans 2, those that respond to general revelation is the same result for those who respond to specific revelation concerning Jesus.

Either way results in justice being served by Jesus the just Judge.

[Anakin7]

      Except those who are Babies/Infants/Mentaly Challenged ?.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[dberrie2000]

One is either a Christian or not. No such thing as a "little c" Christian. "Mormon" is not "Christian" as it didn't exist in the first century when the doctrines were established.

 

Could you explain for us what you find in the Biblical NT-that is not found in the LDS church?

 

Christian doctrine not Mormon doctrine is the determining factor when it comes to doctrine believed and whether or not it is valid teaching.

 

This because certain terms used are redefined which makes the doctrine different enough to not be considered Christian. Although I am not an individuals judge, Biblical teaching is the determining factor as to whether or not specific teaching lines up.

 

Would this count as a Biblical teaching?

 

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)

²⁴ You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dberrie2000]

Not a gratuitous swipe as it is a teaching of Joseph Smith. Once again to explain my point of view based on Biblical teaching.

I'm saying the English is based on what is in the Hebrew.

The plural allows for the three in the Godhead and yet still the one God of monotheism.

 Then you hold to the Biblical NT teaching?

 

1 Corinthians 8:6---King James Version (KJV)

⁶ But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

[Anakin7]

    And there are those Christians that proclaim that Lutheranism [ of which you are a member of ] and its teaching do not  have "valid teachings" with scripture.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

Edited October 13, 2014 by Anakin7

[Flyonthewall]

Romans 1&2 explains the Mormon attempt to solve the dilemma of explaining how ones that never heard of Jesus can have the opportunity of being saved (baptism for the dead teaching). They never stay long enough with the Bible to learn it has already given the answer.

Romans 1 rejection of general revelation leaves them without excuse. Romans 2, those that respond to general revelation is the same result for those who respond to specific revelation concerning Jesus.

Either way results in justice being served by Jesus the just Judge.

So the Gospel of Jesus Christ is superfluous?

This is an example of how taking the pieces of the gospel that are put forth in the scriptures and trying to make them stand on their own without fitting together with what else has been revealed.

First, we hear you must be a "believer" of Jesus Christ to be "saved". Not just any belief in Jesus, but if you do not believe in Jesus the right way, you will NOT be saved. Now we hear you do not even need to know, or even have heard of Jesus to be "Saved".

Wow. Just wow.

[Anakin7]

    FOTW coolrok is saying that in those scripture references that "All" are without excuse because of the general revelation of God and if it is not accepted "All" who reject this General revelation are condemed to hell for all eternity. Coolrok is a Lutheran and a partaker of predestinatioalism, unless he is a rebel and rejects that Lutheran doctrine.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[Calm]

One is either a Christian or not. No such thing as a "little c" Christian. "Mormon" is not "Christian" as it didn't exist in the first century when the doctrines were established.

I hope someone pointed out neither did Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Pentacostals, Angelicans (any Protestant) at the very least, one can at least debate whether Catholics, Coptics and Orthodox and a few others had enough connection with what was going on to be considered present at the time.

Edited October 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[danielwoods]

So you agree that His voice to the living is His message of Truth, the gospel. Then when He stated that same voice will be heard by the dead, all of a sudden, that same voice is not His message of Truth, the gospel. What is it then? Will the voice say anything? Will it be a word? simple a sound? What is the purpose of this voice?

The context of the verses is that all will have the opportunity to hear His Voice, His Word, His Gospel.

 

Repentance is part of His Gospel. Those that never had the opportunity to hear His gospel will have a chance to accept it.

Unfortunately that isn't what the text says, nor is it the pattern taught in the NT. Every time in the NT after death, no more repentance. 

 

I too, am going on what is written. I agree. Israel was indeed blessed by David's accomplishments. He accomplished much. Most of the time he was faithful. He was a great and spiritual man of God... but that did not give him a free pass from adultery and murder. He suffered consequences both temporally and spiritually for those sins.

To use a similar analogy, it would be like he was running a race and was the leader for most of the race, but tripped and fell near the end. He got up and finished the race, but did not win the race.

I agree that he suffered consequences in this life, however, there's no evidence that he "did not win the race" as you claim. As I asked before, where does this come from? It certainly doesn't come from the Biblical text.

 

His message of victory is the gospel, which gives opportunity for all to accept or reject it.

The whole context of the chapter is that there is a resurrection, and all will be taught the gospel, so that all will be judged in relation to the gospel.

Is baptism taught as part of the Gospel? Absolutely! Baptism is required as the first step in accepting the gospel. Before baptism is repentance.

Would it be fair and just for those that never had the opportunity to hear the gospel, be baptized, and accept it, to be cast off because there was no opportunity? Absolutely NOT!

God gives opportunity to all to hear and accept His gospel. Living or Dead.

If all the pieces of the gospel are put together, the picture becomes clear. The NT supports our beliefs... Repentance, baptism, 3 degrees of glory, preaching the gospel to the spirits in prison, baptism for the dead, and the list goes on and on and on.

If you do not want to try and fit all the different concepts alluded to in the scriptures, then you come up with a picture that is hazy, fuzzy, and a mystery.

As I pointed out, baptism for the dead is not taught in the NT. Neither are the 3 degrees of glory or is repentance after death.

The idea that there is repentance after we die, is simply not in the NT as seen in the teachings of Jesus (Rich man and Lazarus), and Hebrews (judgment after death). Even the OT never mentions repentance after we die. Ecceliastes 12:7 "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

 

[Anakin7]

    Am told that there are 200 + interpetations of 1 Cor 15:29.

 

in His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[JLHPROF]

I hope someone pointed out neither did Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Pentacostals, Angelicans (any Protestant) at the very least, one can at least debate whether Catholics, Coptics and Orthodox and a few others had enough connection with what was going on to be considered present at the time.

 

It won't matter to them.  All the other Christian denominations think they date back to the time of Christ, regardless of when they were established.  They just won't allow us to join the club simply because of the Nicene Creed and the mistaken belief that the doctrines selected there date to the time of Christ.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I never said that false or fake gods exist in heaven.

Let's look at what Paul said.

1 Cor. 8:4 "We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),..."

Notice that Paul is not claiming what you think he's claiming. He is not saying that there are other gods in heaven. Rather, he's saying even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as claimed by those who think there are other gods) we serve the one true God. His following statement, "there are many "gods" and many "lords" is a reference to people who pretend to be gods and lords (ever hear of Caesar, who claimed to be "god"?).

Yeah, then you leave off verse 5.

 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

 

So false gods are in heaven according to you? This only works if Paul is talking about other diving real beings, that is the point of all this. But to us, there is One God and One Lord. Your beliefs dictate that no other divine beings exist which is contrary to the bible. So yet again you have to twist it to fit.

 

He is saying regardless of how many gods or divine beings exist there is but to us one God, and one Lord.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I hope someone pointed out neither did Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Pentacostals, Angelicans (any Protestant) at the very least, one can at least debate whether Catholics, Coptics and Orthodox and a few others had enough connection with what was going on to be considered present at the time.

Inserts foot in mouth.

[Storm Rider]

Unfortunately that isn't what the text says, nor is it the pattern taught in the NT. Every time in the NT after death, no more repentance. 

 

I agree that he suffered consequences in this life, however, there's no evidence that he "did not win the race" as you claim. As I asked before, where does this come from? It certainly doesn't come from the Biblical text.

 

As I pointed out, baptism for the dead is not taught in the NT. Neither are the 3 degrees of glory or is repentance after death.

The idea that there is repentance after we die, is simply not in the NT as seen in the teachings of Jesus (Rich man and Lazarus), and Hebrews (judgment after death). Even the OT never mentions repentance after we die. Ecceliastes 12:7 "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

 

 

Are you sure about that or is just your interpretation?  The scriptures are there in black and white. In 1 Peter 4 it makes little sense for those in prison to be taught the gospel if they cannot repent:

 

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

 

Why teach them if there is not an opportunity to respond to those same teachings?  Christ talks repeatedly of baptism and repentance - they are both mentioned over 100 times NT.  

 

Yet it was so important that Jesus himself when and taught the spirits in prison as recorded in 1 Peter 3:19 - 

 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for theunjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;  

 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once thelongsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.   

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God;angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

None of these make sense if repentance and the fullness of the gospel were not taught to those who had already died?  Why do you think Jesus went to the spirits in prison?  What was the purpose?  

[Flyonthewall]

Unfortunately that isn't what the text says, nor is it the pattern taught in the NT. Every time in the NT after death, no more repentance.

IF you ignore other scriptural passages.

I agree that he suffered consequences in this life, however, there's no evidence that he "did not win the race" as you claim. As I asked before, where does this come from? It certainly doesn't come from the Biblical text.

It comes from the biblical text. I have already shown you. If you have eyes to see, let them see.

As I pointed out, baptism for the dead is not taught in the NT. Neither are the 3 degrees of glory or is repentance after death.

Point all you want. The scriptures are what I go on and Baptism for the dead is in the scriptures. Why would they baptize for the dead if the dead rise not at all?... or.... Why would a false religion baptize for the dead if the dead rise not at all(resurrection is a true concept because a false religion believes in it?)

I have shown you in the Bible that 3 degrees of Glory are there. I have shown you in the Bible that Baptism for the dead is there.

The idea that there is repentance after we die, is simply not in the NT as seen in the teachings of Jesus (Rich man and Lazarus), and Hebrews (judgment after death). Even the OT never mentions repentance after we die. Ecceliastes 12:7 "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

The idea is in the scriptures if you do not ignore them. The rich man in that parable had the opportunity in this life and did not take it. No repentance for him.

The scriptures state plainly that Christ preached to the spirits in prison, clearly indicates that his gospel was made known to them. Now why was it made known to them?

To rub their noses in it? "Too bad. You did not have my gospel while you lived so now you are consigned to an eternity in burning torment...don't you wish you had the opportunity while you were alive? Neiner neiner.

Or was it to give them the opportunity they never had while they were alive? And if they accept it, there is the requirement of baptism - how will they receive it if baptisms for the dead are not performed?

Which is more Christ-like?

[danielwoods]

Yeah, then you leave off verse 5.

 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

 

So false gods are in heaven according to you? This only works if Paul is talking about other diving real beings, that is the point of all this. But to us, there is One God and One Lord. Your beliefs dictate that no other divine beings exist which is contrary to the bible. So yet again you have to twist it to fit.

 

He is saying regardless of how many gods or divine beings exist there is but to us one God, and one Lord.

 

One, I'm unclear why you think I left off verse 5? Maybe you didn't recognize it in a different translation?

 

Two, no there are no false gods in heaven. Only one God exists, so that's all there is in Heaven or on the Earth.  

 

Paul is referencing people's claim that other gods exist in heaven or in earth. That's their claim. He's not agreeing that they are really real, rather that they are "called" gods by those people. 

[danielwoods]

Are you sure about that or is just your interpretation?  The scriptures are there in black and white. In 1 Peter 4 it makes little sense for those in prison to be taught the gospel if they cannot repent:

 

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

 

Why teach them if there is not an opportunity to respond to those same teachings?  Christ talks repeatedly of baptism and repentance - they are both mentioned over 100 times NT.  

 

Yet it was so important that Jesus himself when and taught the spirits in prison as recorded in 1 Peter 3:19 - 

 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for theunjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;  

 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once thelongsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.   

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God;angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

None of these make sense if repentance and the fullness of the gospel were not taught to those who had already died?  Why do you think Jesus went to the spirits in prison?  What was the purpose?  

 

The first question is where is repentance or baptism after death mentioned in any of these verses? 

 

Since it isn't there, the next question is what could Peter be referring to? It is likely that he's talking about an event that happened after Jesus died, because the word used for "preached" can also be translated "proclaim" as in proclaim one's victory. What happened just after Jesus died? He went to Paradise where the righteous went before Jesus "set the captives free." Before Jesus did his work, Paradise was part of Sheol, and Jesus proclaim his victory and took those in Paradise to Heaven. 

 

Regardless of whether you agree with me that "spirits in prison" is a description of those in Paradise or not, the fact is that repentance and baptism isn't mentioned for those who are have died physically. 

[danielwoods]

IF you ignore other scriptural passages.

It comes from the biblical text. I have already shown you. If you have eyes to see, let them see.

Point all you want. The scriptures are what I go on and Baptism for the dead is in the scriptures. Why would they baptize for the dead if the dead rise not at all?... or.... Why would a false religion baptize for the dead if the dead rise not at all(resurrection is a true concept because a false religion believes in it?)

I have shown you in the Bible that 3 degrees of Glory are there. I have shown you in the Bible that Baptism for the dead is there.

The idea is in the scriptures if you do not ignore them. The rich man in that parable had the opportunity in this life and did not take it. No repentance for him.

The scriptures state plainly that Christ preached to the spirits in prison, clearly indicates that his gospel was made known to them. Now why was it made known to them?

To rub their noses in it? "Too bad. You did not have my gospel while you lived so now you are consigned to an eternity in burning torment...don't you wish you had the opportunity while you were alive? Neiner neiner.

Or was it to give them the opportunity they never had while they were alive? And if they accept it, there is the requirement of baptism - how will they receive it if baptisms for the dead are not performed?

Which is more Christ-like?

 

If you call reading and studying "ignoring", then I am guilty. 

 

You see, I don't honestly care either way. I'm interested in what it actually says. I look at each passage and ask what the author was wanting to convey to his readers. And each passage doesn't ever contain any teaching on baptism for the dead, 3 degrees of glory, repentance after death. It's simply not there. 

 

If Paul or anyone in the early church taught baptism for the dead they sure dropped the ball big time, because it's not taught anywhere. Oh, sure Paul mentioned that some do that, to support his argument for the resurrection. But, mentioning a practice that some participate is a far cry from teaching it. He also never states that he does it. Nor does he say we should do it. 

 

You asked, which is more Christ like? 

 

It's a valid question. What is the example of Christ? Did he mention baptism for the dead even once? You'd think he would if it was so important. Rather, he said "Make disciples" that was his imperative to his followers. What about those who never hear the Gospel? Why is it that you don't accept what Romans 1 teaches? That all are without excuse? You think God is not Christ like? 

[thesometimesaint]

The 3 degrees of glory are mentioned in the Bible.

For those that never heard the gospel there is repentance after death is mentioned in Bible

Baptism for the dead is mentioned in the Bible.

 

I really can't help it if you EV's reject the Bible.

[Flyonthewall]

If you call reading and studying "ignoring", then I am guilty.

I call ignoring what is written in black and white "ignoring".

You see, I don't honestly care either way. I'm interested in what it actually says. I look at each passage and ask what the author was wanting to convey to his readers. And each passage doesn't ever contain any teaching on baptism for the dead, 3 degrees of glory, repentance after death. It's simply not there.

When you learn to take the entirety of the scriptures together, and not individual passages to stand by themselves, then you will begin to get the clear and true picture. Instead you have disjointed images that make up a jumbled mess.

If you want to know what the author was wanting to convey, then look at the gospel as a whole, not random individual statements that do not have to be consistent with what has been revealed.

 

If Paul or anyone in the early church taught baptism for the dead they sure dropped the ball big time, because it's not taught anywhere. Oh, sure Paul mentioned that some do that, to support his argument for the resurrection. But, mentioning a practice that some participate is a far cry from teaching it. He also never states that he does it. Nor does he say we should do it.

Paul is the one that asked the question - Why are they baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all? The indication is that why would one be true an not the other? Baptizing for the dead is true because resurrection is true.

And to use the tactic you are using - Paul never said that he did not practice it.

And you are right. The ball was dropped. Plain and precious truths were lost. Truth needed to be restored.

 

You asked, which is more Christ like? 

 

It's a valid question. What is the example of Christ? Did he mention baptism for the dead even once? You'd think he would if it was so important. Rather, he said "Make disciples" that was his imperative to his followers. What about those who never hear the Gospel? Why is it that you don't accept what Romans 1 teaches? That all are without excuse? You think God is not Christ like?

I don't accept your interpretation of Romans 1. Romans 1 is fine when placed in the context of gospel truth.

Christ taught Baptism. Baptism if for the remission of sin. Jesus was sinless and had no need of baptism but He stated: "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."(Matthew 3:15) This demonstrates that baptism is not optional - all must receive it.

Jesus taught Nicodemus about baptism in John 3:5 that it is required to enter into the kingdom of God.

Baptism by immersion is being born of water. Receiving the Holy Ghost is being born of the spirit.

Baptism is also a symbolic representation of burying the natural man and being resurrected with Christ to walk in newness of life.(Romans 6:4)

Jesus commissioned the Apostles in Mark 16:15&16 "5 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Notice that only those that believe and are baptized will be saved.

Jesus went to preach to the Spirits in prison - says so right in the bible. What did He preach? His gospel. First step of His gospel is Baptism.

No you tell me. In light of what actually IS taught in the Bible, how will those that lived and died without ever having a chance to hear the gospel, believe and be baptized be saved?

According to what you have put forth, they will have some sort of "general revelation" that consists of.... what? The gospel of Jesus Christ? - nope. That is not what is in the scriptures. So for them, no chance to hear the gospel. No chance to accept and believe. No chance to receive baptism.

In what we put forth, ALL will have the opportunity to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. ALL will have the opportunity to accept and believe it. ALL will have an opportunity to receive baptism.